Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto;max-width: 100%;height: auto" loading="lazy" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-2195" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2015/11/Whistleblower-200x300.jpg" alt="Sport and justice" width="200" height="300">A&nbsp;fired GC of a public company recently fended off dismissal of his whistle-blower retaliation claims in California district court.&nbsp;&nbsp;Adding to a split in authority, the chief magistrate judge for the Northern District of California held (1)&nbsp;that the protections of the Dodd-Frank Act applied even though the GC made his report internally, and not to the SEC; and (2) that the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank and the&nbsp;Sarbanes-Oxley Act can&nbsp;impose liability on individual directors, and not only the company.
In denying the company&rsquo;s motion to dismiss in&nbsp;<a href="http://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/Wadler_v._Bio-Rad_Labs.,_Inc._9d03.pdf">Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.</a>, the district court&nbsp;ruled that the GC could sue the individual directors in addition to the company, and upheld his SOX claim against one director.&nbsp; On November 23, Bio-Rad <a href="http://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/Wadler_v._Bio-Rad_Mtn_for_Interlocutory_Appeal_4e9c.pdf">moved</a> to certify the ruling for interlocutory appeal.
In his suit against Bio-Rad,&nbsp;the former GC alleged that he was fired in retaliation for reporting to upper management his concerns about the company&rsquo;s possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, stemming from the company&rsquo;s dealings in China.&nbsp; The GC asserted claims under both Dodd-Frank and SOX.
Company-only reporting protected
Dodd-Frank and SOX federalize some aspects of the ethical duty of confidentiality, and make some reporting of client misconduct mandatory.&nbsp; The relationship between the federal statutory scheme and&nbsp;various state versions of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_13_organization_as_client.html">Model Rule 1.13</a>, which applies to lawyers in&nbsp;&ldquo;reporting up&rdquo; and &ldquo;reporting out&rdquo; client&nbsp;misconduct that could substantially harm the company, has been the subject of significant commentary.&nbsp; See, e.g., <a href="http://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/SSRN-id2620365_4505.pdf">here</a> (pub. forthcoming,&nbsp;33 Yale J. on&nbsp;Reg., 2016; draft cited with permission).
The issue of whether Dodd-Frank&rsquo;s anti-retaliation provisions apply to individuals who only report their concerns internally and not to the SEC has divided the federal Courts of Appeal that have ruled on it.
The SEC&rsquo;s own position, as set out in <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2012-title17-vol3/CFR-2012-title17-vol3-sec240-21F-2">17 C.F.R. &sect; 240.21F-2</a>,&nbsp;is that&nbsp;Dodd-Frank does protect internal whistle-blowers.
Most recently, in <a href="https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/berman-v-neo-ogilvy-llc.pdf">Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC</a>, the Second Circuit ruled in line with the SEC&rsquo;s view.&nbsp; But the Fifth Circuit, in 2013,&nbsp;ruled the other way, holding&nbsp;that only individuals who have provided information or assistance to the SEC qualify for anti-retaliation protection.
In Wadler, the district court wrote that the SEC&rsquo;s position has been accepted by a majority of the lower courts that have grappled with the issue, which have accorded deference to the agency&rsquo;s position.&nbsp; Therefore, the fact that the company&rsquo;s GC didn&rsquo;t turn outside with his FCPA concerns did not defeat his claim, the court held.
Individual directors liable
In enacting SOX, Congress did not expressly include directors in the list of corporate &ldquo;agents&rdquo; who are subject to individual liability for retaliating against a corporate whistle-blower.&nbsp; But in Wadler, the court said that didn&rsquo;t signify a legislative intent to shield directors from such liability.&nbsp; Instead, the &ldquo;context and general purpose&rdquo; of SOX supports &ldquo;the conclusion that the term &lsquo;agent&rsquo; is intended to encompass directors.&rdquo;&nbsp; As for Dodd-Frank, the court wrote that Congress intended&nbsp;that&nbsp;Act&rsquo;s&nbsp;anti-retaliation reach to be &ldquo;at least as extensive&rdquo; as that of SOX.
Headed for SCOTUS?
In mid-November, the SEC issued its annual <a href="http://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/reportspubs/annual-reports/owb-annual-report-2015.pdf">report </a>to Congress on the Dodd-Frank whistle-blower program, reporting that the number of whistleblower reports to the agency has increased every year since the program was instituted in 2011.&nbsp; (H/T to Kevin LaCroix over at <a href="http://www.dandodiary.com/2015/11/articles/securities-laws/sec-whistleblower-reports-continue-to-increase/">The D&amp;O Diary</a>.)&nbsp; In Berman,&nbsp;the Second Circuit case,&nbsp;the court granted a stay on October 14, to allow the defendants to petition for Supreme Court review.&nbsp;&nbsp;So stay tuned.&nbsp;&nbsp; The extent of a lawyer&rsquo;s&nbsp;duty and ability to report up and out, and the liability that&nbsp;can be imposed for retaliatory conduct, might be headed for further&nbsp;resolution by the high court.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

Fired GC fends off dismissal of retaliation claim, can sue individual director, says district court